Independent limitation in 6E

[Jhaierr]

I've been reading 6E, and I like it quite a bit.

 

I was curious about the removal of the Independent limitation? I assume it was just removed because it was too unbalancing and/or unfair (since you could potentially lose your character points forever).

 

Or am I overlooking something? Is it subsumed into another limitation somewhere and I've missed it?

 

Does anyone know more about this?

[Hierax]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

I think it's just plain gone. Not in the Index and I didn't stumble across it anywhere yet either.

 

Personally I loved it and thought it was vastly under-used in the official writeups.

 

Too bad, there's a lot of useful and cool things you can do with Independent. But it's easy enough to House Rule it back in as a Custom Modifier. Hopefully it's in the APG.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

I think it's just plain gone. Not in the Index and I didn't stumble across it anywhere yet either.

 

Personally I loved it and thought it was vastly under-used in the official writeups.

 

Too bad, there's a lot of useful and cool things you can do with Independent. But it's easy enough to House Rule it back in as a Custom Modifier. Hopefully it's in the APG.

 

My guess is either APG or Fantasy Hero.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

I never really understood what 'independent' gave that 'universal focus' didn't except free points.

[Jhaierr]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

I never really understood what 'independent' gave that 'universal focus' didn't except free points.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't have the books in front of me), but I believe it was essentially saying this:

 

Fire Bolt: 8d6 Energy Blast, OAF universal wand (-1): 20 Real Points

 

Your magic wand is necessary to cast this spell. Actually, anyone can pick up the wand and do this. However, those are still your points and attached to your character, so they would be a bit like Spider-Man picking up a big blaster and using it once or twice, then dropping it and going on to something else. In the end, you can get it back and have your power again without a ton of trouble. An enemy isn't going to take it away from you and have you lose it for 5-6 sessions.

 

Fire Blot: 8d6 Energy Blast, OAF wand (-1), Independent (-2): 10 Real Points

 

This is the same as before (anyone can pick it up an use it), but you can permanently lose it. It's cheaper, but those 10 points you spent are essentially detached from you. Someone else can pick it up and add it to their own arsenal. You'll have to get it back somehow or spend another 10 points "making" a new wand.

 

Wands or guns or telepathic helmets, of course. It can apply to anything. This is how I understood it anyway.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

I have only ever used Independant in campaigns where Characters didn't pay points for Equipment in the first place. It was just a trick for me to reduce Real Points to cram more stuff into Equipment Pools when I used them. . . which means it really wasn't getting the full worth of the Limitation in the first place.

 

It was an interesting, but ultimately useless, Limitation. I'm actually surprised it's gone, but not unhappy. More space in the book for useful stuff.

[tesuji]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

yeah the mechanical difference between independent and focus was that when your focus got gone or broken you REPLACED IT FREE no more points needed, but with an INDEPENDENT item you had to respend the points.

 

I always described independent as "you are renting points" in that at the beginning you had an edge in points since it was so much for so cheap but eventually you will lose the item and permanently lose the points.

 

As such pcs rarely used it in my games.

 

I did however employ it for "items you cannot replace" like alien tech that you dont have manuals for etc.

 

Still i used it rarely.

 

the disagreements often came in terms of people who wanted to use the "special quest" options to effectiveley make independent meaningless. Instead of just "replacing my focus in my lab" the wanted independent to "give me a special quest after which i get my item back" and save me points too.

 

for -2?

 

not hardly.

 

Personally my approach would have been to define some dfefault "it takes this long and this effort" parameters for standard focus replacement and then have some time chart adjustment for "takes longer" for replacement. then something like "takes a month of special rituals in the shadow of mount doom" to replace the focus just becames as calculable as "go to the local gun shp" etc.

[Hierax]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

Independent is almost exclusively used on Foci but it doesn't have to be.

 

Personally, I also found Independent great for granted powers that exist outside of the character but aren't necessarily tied to a physical item:

 

• Independent powers of Office - you get the power as long as you hold a certain position and/or rank, but if you lose the position you lose the powers - great for Political and Military -base.
  

 

• Independent powers of divine favour - perfect for Cleric/Priest spells that defines them from Wizard spells is that the power isn't their own, it belongs to the god and/or the priestly hierarchy (thought the latter is more a power of office than favour) and the favour can be removed.
  

The powers can be taken away but not just by taking away an item.

 

Independent offered a discount for items that weren't really part of the character himself but ones that the character was merely the current custodian of. In this way they offered an intermediary step between regular Foci-based Powers and Free Equipment, and in my mind extra stages of granularity means you can simulate more things.

 

As a minor digression, as for Foci an odd problem was Independent was used for Magical Items but not for regular items so you'd get weird things like mundane items being more expensive to build than magical ones.

 

Independent was a big Limitation but it had a huge downside compared to a regular Focus, if you lost it you not only lost the power temporarily until you could get a new focus, you lost Character Points! Great for guys that want to build their own magic items, sure they get 'em cheap but gamble on losing the points (Sauron I'm lookin at you!).

 

Hopefully that gives you a better idea of what I mean how Independent added value to the game.

 

In contrast, it didn't take anything away from the game having it, and it was a straight forward mechanic that there wasn't any debate over. At worst it could be seen as a power-gaming ploy to get a power cheaply, but it was a Limitation that could be very limiting indeed, so it was actually one of the best balanced parts of the game, IMO, YMMV...

[archermoo]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

I never really understood what 'independent' gave that 'universal focus' didn't except free points.

 

With independent the points are invested in the power. If you lose the power you lose the points. A universal focus can be used by anyone, but if you are using someone else's universal focus on a regular basis you need to pay points for it yourself. Also things like if you lose a universal focus you are only without it temporarily and don't have to pay (at least in CP) for it again to replace it.

 

They are very different and in fact almost unrelated, which is why you can explicitly take both focus and independent on a power.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

Fairy Nuff, but I could never see a GM actually taking points off someone by permanently having them lose an independent item/power unless that sort of thing was common in that game: it is not a bad way to limit XP expansion - magic items that you can (and do) lose - but you'd have to treat eveyone equally, or nearly so, or I could see upsetness* happening.

 

 

 

*Yes, it is.

[archermoo]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

Fairy Nuff, but I could never see a GM actually taking points off someone by permanently having them lose an independent item/power unless that sort of thing was common in that game: it is not a bad way to limit XP expansion - magic items that you can (and do) lose - but you'd have to treat eveyone equally, or nearly so, or I could see upsetness* happening.

 

 

 

*Yes, it is.

 

Whereas on the flip side I warn anyone who buys a power with the Independent Limitation on it that they will almost certainly be losing it (and the associated points) at some point in the campaign. Personally I've never liked it, and am quite happy it is gone now.

 

And if a Ref isn't willing to have players permanently lose points when they lose an Independent Power they shouldn't let the players use the Limitation. Because the chance that they will permanently lose the points is the only reason that the Limitation is worth anything in the first place.

[Jhaierr]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

I can see why it was removed. Too much danger of "Hey, you took away my points! No fair!" as well as just using it to make everything cheaper with no real detriment. I'm not sure if I ever used it myself.

 

I figure if the GM wants to give a character something and have it taken away later, it should cost no points in the first place (or the points get redistributed).

 

I was curious if it was absorbed in some way elsewhere and I had missed it. Thanks, everyone.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

I compared it to X Charges that Never Recover. If, say, 5-8 Charges that Never Recover are worth the same as Independent (I don't know off the top of my head, using that for the sake of discussion) then I figure you're being "fair" if you give them 5-8 uses before you whack the item.

 

But I'm happy it's gone. Good riddance, says I.

[Hierax]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

If they didn't want the Limitation consequences they shouldn't take it. It's like whining about limiting your defences and getting hit by an attack of a different SFX or taking a Susceptibility/Vulnerability and complaining when it's used against you. You get the discount but it comes at a price. Seems to fit the Hero meta-philosophy perfectly.

 

People that didn't like it didn't use it but I don't think it caused any real problems and was far from worthless.

 

That all said, it's easily worked back in with a Custom Modifier Limitation. I've never felt constrained to play any edition of any game strictly by the rules of that edition any more than I've felt the need to only cook food according to a recipe, games like food are best seasoned to taste. The more ingredients available to choose from to customize it the better, that's my only complaint removing a choice lessens the game options.

[ajackson]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

I never really understood what 'independent' gave that 'universal focus' didn't except free points.

It gave the GM the option to permanently make your character worse than everyone else.

[Hierax]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

No, it gave the character an option to get his power cheaper (like any other Limitation) until they paid the price - again Sauron can't whine he lost all those character points because of the Limitation when he almost got to rule the world because of getting more powerful because of the Limiation -- better first, then worse -- that's what makes Hero great, there's always a price to pay!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

It gave the GM the option to permanently make your character worse than everyone else.

 

 

Looks like we have a consensus here: what's going on?

[archermoo]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

It gave the GM the option to permanently make your character worse than everyone else.

 

Well, more accurately it gave you the option to make your character better than everyone else temporarily at the cost of being worse than them permanently when the Limitation caught up to you.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

The only place I ever used it was for characters creating magical items in fantasy settings (I might have also used it for certain "super-tech" in heroic Sci-Fi games or something, but never got far enough into that kind of game to do so). There are other options for doing so even in most of those campaigns, and even if I continue to allow the Limitation, I don't think it has wide enough applicability to belong in the core system. I'm good with the change.

[archermoo]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

I generally only used it for writing things up as a Ref. I never used it as a player that I can think of, and I highly discouraged it's use by the players when I was a Ref. Generally telling them that if they take Independent there will with certainty lose those points at some point in the campaign was sufficient.

[Lucius]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

Combined with Focus, it is good for irreplaceable items that could be lost permanently.

 

As has been pointed out, it can simulate a "Power of Office" such as a paladin's abilities that can be permanently lost with a loss of status.

 

Combined with Area of Effect, it can effect an area with a power "permanently" - useful as long as you're in that area, but little good if you are driven out - or just want to actually, you know, travel and adventure instead of staying in your castle or tower your whole life.

 

In all these cases of course the right Dispel can mean the permanent loss of the power and the associated points.

 

 

Conceptually, it means a power exists separately from the character, and can therefore endure after the character is gone, creating long term changes in the game world. A character who crafts an unbreakable enchanted item, evokes a healing spring that will be the object of pilgrimage for ages to come, or institutes a ritual that will endow future generations of initiates with oracular insight as long as they follow certain strictures, can feel as if they have invested their points in a legacy of imperishable honor.

 

 

Independent may not have been used often, but it has its place, and its loss impoverishes the system.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary signs a Declaration for Independent!

[Markdoc]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

Fairy Nuff' date=' but I could never see a GM actually taking points off someone by permanently having them lose an independent item/power unless that sort of thing was common in that game: it is not a bad way to limit XP expansion - magic items that you can (and do) lose - but you'd have to treat eveyone equally, or nearly so, or I could see upsetness* happening.[/quote']

 

Oddly enough, I am using it in my current game where, half the PCs have a power with independent - and one of them lost his power long ago, without any upsetness.

 

In this case I used it for supernatural powers: a person can make a deal with a diety/demon and gain a magical power (for free! It's an easy way as GM of awarding power-ups). But the power comes with a geas. Break your geas and you lose the power (It's an easy way as GM to guide PC behaviour and also makes the powers less "standard hero system power" in feel).

 

It's easy enough to houserule back in, so I'm meh on its presence in 6E. It's one of those things which is rarely used (this game is the first time I've used it extensively) but very useful for some otherwise difficult to simulate powers.

 

cheers, Mark

[jtelson]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

Combined with Focus, it is good for irreplaceable items that could be lost permanently.

 

As has been pointed out, it can simulate a "Power of Office" such as a paladin's abilities that can be permanently lost with a loss of status.

 

Combined with Area of Effect, it can effect an area with a power "permanently" - useful as long as you're in that area, but little good if you are driven out - or just want to actually, you know, travel and adventure instead of staying in your castle or tower your whole life.

 

In all these cases of course the right Dispel can mean the permanent loss of the power and the associated points.

 

 

Conceptually, it means a power exists separately from the character, and can therefore endure after the character is gone, creating long term changes in the game world. A character who crafts an unbreakable enchanted item, evokes a healing spring that will be the object of pilgrimage for ages to come, or institutes a ritual that will endow future generations of initiates with oracular insight as long as they follow certain strictures, can feel as if they have invested their points in a legacy of imperishable honor.

 

 

Independent may not have been used often, but it has its place, and its loss impoverishes the system.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary signs a Declaration for Independent!

 

Must spread rep...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

Combined with Focus, it is good for irreplaceable items that could be lost permanently.

 

As has been pointed out, it can simulate a "Power of Office" such as a paladin's abilities that can be permanently lost with a loss of status.

 

Combined with Area of Effect, it can effect an area with a power "permanently" - useful as long as you're in that area, but little good if you are driven out - or just want to actually, you know, travel and adventure instead of staying in your castle or tower your whole life.

 

In all these cases of course the right Dispel can mean the permanent loss of the power and the associated points.

 

Conceptually, it means a power exists separately from the character, and can therefore endure after the character is gone, creating long term changes in the game world. A character who crafts an unbreakable enchanted item, evokes a healing spring that will be the object of pilgrimage for ages to come, or institutes a ritual that will endow future generations of initiates with oracular insight as long as they follow certain strictures, can feel as if they have invested their points in a legacy of imperishable honor.

 

Independent may not have been used often, but it has its place, and its loss impoverishes the system.

 

So allow a Limited Power limitation - "Power is permanently lost under the following conditions". The higher the limitation, the more likely the power will be lost, and the more likely it will happen sooner rather than later.

 

Independent, used as a character design limitation, basically says "I get lots of extra power up front, but when I lose them, I become a weak sister to the other characters." If the abilities are never lost, I get to stay more powerful (and the limitation doesn't really limit me). If they are lost, I limp along as a sidekick, or I make a new character (with new Independent powers).

 

The Independent limitation is like the old Magic User situation in D&D - you're terribly weak at low levels, much weaker than the other PC's, and horrifically powerful at high levels, much stronger than the other PC's. Therefore, you are balanced since your time at lower power should be equal to your time at higher power.

 

Independent is more like a campaign setting, like NCM, that says "equipment comes and goes, and is not purchased with character points". After all, we don't make the Fantasy Archer pay Character Points have a bow and arrows as a starting character, so why should the Wizard pay Character Points to have a magic wand that can be broken or lost?

 

Hmmm...Independent could reasonably be replaced with a campaign standard for how long it takes a lost power to come back. If you lose a focus, you get a new one by purchasing it with cash, or perhaps by getting/building a new one taking 1 day per X AP. For a higher limitation, the cost or criteria for recovering the power goes up, or X gets reduced. And be aware that this means the GM's JOB is to remove the ability from you at times, and to ensure you miss it when you don't have it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Independent limitation in 6E

 

Unbreakable focus can be lost permanently, unmade. Well - there may be a way to re-make it, but it will involve a long term loss of the power - it shouldn't be easy.

 

I think that my concern with Independednt, as well as potential upsetness (which a decent GM can obviously overcome by plying the player with goose...did I get that right?) is sense and arbitraryness.

 

Sense: in a world where XP exist, even if not obviously to the PCs, the distinction between a focus and and independent focus is almost entirely outside the game world: it is like pre-writing a bit of the story: you WILL lose this. Given that I rarely have any personal upsetness if a player simply wants to re-write a character build, it always seemed more of a hinderance to storytelling than a help: a fixed point where a fixed point is not wanted.

 

Arbitraryness: I like the suggestion of comparing it to non-recovering charges (although many of the same arguments can be used there) but it is still up to the GM - USUALLY - up to the GM - to decide how long the character can keep whatever it is, and that involves choice. Logically there are probably situations where it should be lost before it is even used, and others where it remains on an almost permanent basis.

 

As GM treats (have a potion of healing) or such I suppose there was a place (but again Non-recoverable charges have most of the bases covered there), and in games where equipment was not purchased with character points, it seems almost completely unnecessary.

 

Still, if you like it, nothing to prevent you continuing to use it.